They all engage in it.. numerous wrongs simply don't justify any of this behavior from either side. Politics are totally dirty.It's always been that way, but we seem to find it morally reprehensible when it's not "our guy" doing it.

I disagree that they all engage in the kind of smearing and character assassination that has increased since Trump came on the political scene. That kind of stuff is still exceptional; that's why it has been so lamented both by the other party and by many who would be presumed to share the old Republican philosophy. Shrugging off things like smearing a U.S. resident brutally killed by a foreign government with "they all do it," just provides cover for outrages.

Your Clinton example is valid. Had I noted it at the time I would have been critical of her campaign, as I assume you were. Since just about all of your examples of political hypocrisy focus on the left, I'm curious whether this means you think hypocrisy is sort of inherent in the left, and not so present in the right.

Your Clinton example is valid. Had I noted it at the time I would have been critical of her campaign, as I assume you were. Since just about all of your examples of political hypocrisy focus on the left, I'm curious whether this means you think hypocrisy is sort of inherent in the left, and not so present in the right.

You're not the only one that was not critical at the time. Not only was it apocryphal to watch, it was also quickly swept under the rug as if it never happened. I figure since all examples of political degeneracy here focus on the left, I surely can be the person to point out the left's malfeasance simply because I find it hard to look away when I know its there. When your stance is more to the center its that much easier.

I agree with an article I read on Al Jazzier just after Trump won the White House. It's not too difficult to be concerned with what a 4 year Trump presidency could mean. However, when you witness the incessant, child-like name calling histrionics today's american Left constantly engages in, one can't help but think our modern day "progressives" somehow think everything should go their way, and if it doesn't we all are going to fucking die - literally. It's the epitome, as the author pointed out, of being politically spoiled. That's exactly what the left's reaction has been akin to: a baby having a temper tantrum. Actually, it's been quite embarrassing. When you're this politically immature it becomes all too easy to embarrass yourself without even realizing it.

Their are people in countries that live daily with the threat of invasion on their borders, collapsed economies, dictatorial regimes lead by REAL DICTATORS that can send someone to your home, drag your wife and kids out into the street and have them shot in front of you, and countless other daily evils. All while here at home our progressives our lamenting that Trump is a modern day Hitler (not even CLOSE if you know a little history), our detention centers are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps (seriously??), and making "pussy hats" to signify a battle cry for our oppressed women who are nearly as bad off as women in Saudi Arabia, India, etc. You'd think our oppressed champions of equal rights would find the time to march for women in other countries who live daily with the threat of forced marriage, rape with no legal recourse, genital mutilation, stoning, etc after they've finished their caramel lattes at Starbucks.

Some of our issues here at home are real and need our attention. Don't get me wrong. But the constant dramatizations by the left are entirely out of hand.

Here's a personal note I can share. My family has sponsored 2 immigrants to help them obtain citizenship. I think it's a great experience and is a way to really start taking action and help.

Why doesn't the left encourage sponsorship? Why isn't that part of the discussion. My grandparents became legal citizens back int he early 40s. From that example, my family went on to help other immigrants. Why aren't immigrants like my grandparents invited to join the discussion on news platforms like CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Slate, etc?

What about any progressive here on BT? Has anyone considered opening their home to an immigrant from Mexico (where my grandparents are from) and sponsoring their path to citizenship? Or is chanting "No borders, no walls!" at some local march then blogging about it on Facebook enough demonstration that you really care?

I take it from your response that the simple answer to my question would be "yes," the left does have a particular penchant for hypocrisy, and perhaps also for sanctimony. Well, that could be; I mean I couldn't rule it out. It does seem to me questionable to define the liberal left by its most extreme expressions, just as it would be questionable to define the conservative right by Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson or Mark Meadows. As for progressives not sponsoring immigrants, how do we know they don't?

The Hillary Clinton smear you cited happened 10 years ago. Was it swept under the rug back then? I don't know. You say her political opponents or the press didn't bring it up last election. It would have been fair game. It is in any case not realistic to always expect mea culpas from the person who's criticizing (is it?).

But a problem with whataboutism that's based on general suspicion of the other side is that it can prevent one from giving due attention to something that isn't right, if it's the favored side that's at fault or even (as in your case) if there's not favoritism exactly, but there is antipathy towards the opposite side. This is because of concern for letting the other side off the hook for something similar it did, perhaps long ago. It then becomes hard to judge the current instance independently of these feelings of resentment, and defensiveness is the result. In the case of Jamal Khashoggi, I'm seeing a clear moral reason to condemn the whisper campaign against him. Holding back because of something in the same category that a liberal did doesn't make sense to me. And the "they all do it" escape seems to give permission for an arms race of words and deeds.

It does seem to me questionable to define the liberal left by its most extreme expressions, just as it would be questionable to define the conservative right by Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson or Mark Meadows. As for progressives not sponsoring immigrants, how do we know they don't?

Putting the loonies aside from both sides, I believe intellectually humility favors the right because the left disconnects itself from societal reality.., because they fail to understand a world that is filled with moral trade-offs, filled with human beings that will always remain imperfect. The vision of achieving a moral utopia by extinguishing every evil in the world until utopia is achieved is not rational. If you present an argument as to why a particular evil may not be able to be totally extinguished you are met with emotional hostility and called evil, a racist, or a Nazi.

I consider myself a centrist. I hold both liberal and conservative socio-political values. One of my friends, a strong conservative, was asked to leave the house occupied by a left leaning "friend" because he disagreed with the his social stance on immigration. When my friend wanted to discuss improving the path to legal immigration, he was nearly called a racist.

I have a sense that your experience is something that informs a lot of what you have to say about these issues. I also sense it's quite a different experience from mine. The first step in people trying to really communicate with each other is to understand where the other one is coming from, rather than staking out positions for debate. But I wonder whether living in CA naturally puts you more within a left/liberal milieu than is the situation for me,

I have a sense that your experience is something that informs a lot of what you have to say about these issues.

The above is true of everyone.

Quote:

I also sense it's quite a different experience from mine

Absolutely. Further, two people could be subjected to the same environment and will still have different experiences. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

The first step in people trying to really communicate with each other is to understand where the other one is coming from, rather than staking out positions for debate.

According to findings by Haidt and Pinker the left is not nearly as willing as the right to explore and achieve some understanding of "the other's" view regarding socio-poltical matters.That makes sense given some of the explanations offered.

Quote:

But I wonder whether living in CA naturally puts you more within a left/liberal milieu than is the situation for me,

Nope - most Californians are left. I'm slightly right of center.

Last edited by ant on Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ant wrote:According to findings by Haidt and Pinker the left is not nearly as willing as the right to explore and achieve some understanding of "the other's" view regarding socio-poltical matters.That makes sense given some of the explanations offered.

Where exactly are these findings by Haidt and Pincker? How did they arrive at these conclusions? Did they take surveys? Author peer-reviewed papers? Or are these merely their opinions?

Here's what I've found by Jonathan Haidt on the subject of liberals and conservatives:

"What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world."— Jonathan Haidt

....

"University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Happiness Hypothesis and the recently-published The Righteous Mind, whose research indicates that morality is a social construction which has evolved out of raw materials provided by five (or more) innate "psychological" foundations: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup, Authority, and Purity. Highly educated liberals generally rely upon and endorse only the first two foundations, whereas people who are more conservative, more religious, or of lower social class usually rely upon and endorse all five foundations." — John Brockman

The mid-term election in a few days will be interesting. It’s basically do or die for Leftists in America. It makes me think of the battle of Gettysburg, which was do or die for the Confederacy. When they lost, the rest was just dénouement. It will be interesting to see if Hillary and Maxine Waters can go gently into the night.

But the Left will play some interesting cards between now and election day, I’m sure. Like the current fake “bombing” story. The day the story broke, the number one searched term on google was “false flag.” That’s what the event is. And everybody knows it.

I expect the election will turn into a contest to see who can manipulate votes better, so no telling how it will turn out. I lost confidence in the election system when a court appointed our president in 2000. Come to think of it, that election hinged on votes counted in Broward County, Florida. The same county where they just caught the “MAGA bomber.” The same county where the police stood down during the Parkland school shooting. The Obama/Daley machine in Cook County, Illinois may be as corrupt as the Wasserman/Bush machine in Broward, but if so only by a hanging chad.

I didn't look at the video, but if this particular candidate removed his rival's pamphlet from a voter's home, doesn't that show that only this particular candidate is lacking in integrity? Or is it your thesis that all liberals lack integrity? I think you will find that such broad generalizations aren't fair or accurate.

I didn't look at the video, but if this particular candidate removed his rival's pamphlet from a voter's home, doesn't that show that only this particular candidate is lacking in integrity? Or is it your thesis that all liberals lack integrity? I think you will find that such broad generalizations aren't fair or accurate.

Is your thesis a generalization that because a centrist points out a democrat's gross, unethical misconduct, he believes all democrats are of unsavory character?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!